1. But just as anything connected with the noumenal Son or God is eternal compared with the vegetative temporality of that which applies to the phenomenal Son, a Son-of-Man, so is the noumenal Father eternal compared with the vegetative temporality of the phenomenal Father, a Father-of-Man, and this whether in relation to the sensuality or to the sensibility of either context.
2. Now the outer Father, in general sensual terms, is ever a context of not-self for males to be saved from, whether on the phenomenal axis of mass-volume subjectivity, wherein salvation is from phallus to brain, or on the noumenal axis of time-space subjectivity, wherein salvation is from ears to lungs, and the sensible sinfulness of the inner Father, whether temporal or eternal, is accordingly something to be utilized by the inner Son, whether manly or godly, in the interests of his psychic redemption and resurrection, since such sinfulness is no-less wise than the Son's, albeit in relation to bound nature rather than to free psyche, and thus of a secondary order of wisdom.
3. That much is clear, one might almost say say-evident, though the important distinction between the temporal and eternal forms of both the Father and the Son, whether outer or inner, is crucial to an understanding of the differences between the phenomenal and noumenal axes of male subjectivity, since where the temporal only has reference to man and the earth, whether in the sensuality of folly and unholiness or in the sensibility of wisdom and holiness, the reference of the eternal is to God and Heaven, again whether in the folly and unholiness of the sensual manifestations of metaphysical self and not-self or, through salvation from them, in the wisdom and holiness of the sensible manifestations of metaphysical self and not-self, psyche and nature, primary inner God/Heaven and secondary inner God/Heaven.
4. For the self always takes precedence over the not-self, psyche over nature, with males, and never more so than in sensibility, whether with an egocentric bias, as in physics, or with a soulful (psychocentric) bias, as in metaphysics. But, in the decadence of Western civilization, such a precedence has of course been called into question and often ridiculed and negated in the female hegemonies characterizing sensuality, whereby not-self takes precedence over self, nature over psyche, whether with an instinctual bias towards the will, as in metachemistry, or with a spiritual bias, as in chemistry, and to such an extent that the self has often been lost sight of and effectively denied any meaningful existence.
5. Consequently the type of Civilization that has developed around female hegemonies on both noumenal and phenomenal terms tends to act and behave with such a bias for the not-self - and the metachemical and chemical not-selves above all - over the self that selflessness has been more or less taken for granted and accorded a pre-eminent position from standpoints grounded in free nature and conditioning, whether directly or indirectly, psychic determinism, the will-conditioned id tending to war on the soul and effectively negate its existence, while the spirit-conditioned superego has tended to war on the ego and likewise negate the existence of that, in consequence of which belief in the soul, and therefore in an Afterlife, has been undermined, while belief in the ego has been castigated and denigrated through terms like 'ego tripping', 'egotistical', and so on, as though something to be held against the person - usually male - in view of its selfish orientation, or orientation towards the self.
6. Therefore the egocentric person has been no less at variance with the nature of the times than the soulful person, even though the self continues to exist, even in sensuality, as also with females, albeit on a much more deterministic basis owing to the free nature, the 'matter over mind', in greater prevalence below psyche, a nature that breeds its own paradoxical and more brutal kind of 'selfishness' in both phenomenal and noumenal contexts.
7. However that may be, the prevalence of not-self over self with female hegemonies, fuelled and maintained by public-spirited ideologies like Socialism and Feminism, has ensured an unhealthy disrespect for self on both intellectual and emotional, egocentric and soulful levels, and the unfortunate result is that a society has developed around the cathode-ray tube (CRT) and other vacuous technologies and realities that, far from believing in the self, seek to belittle and negate it, with a consequence that people have blindly and ignorantly died in the mistaken belief that they will not have to experience an afterlife in which one comes face to face, as it were, with the self, and with a self that has mysteriously 'come alive' in the 'eternity' of soulful illumination.
8. Deferring to media rooted in vacuums and often purveying correlatively vacuous material, they have behaved as though the self didn't exist or, at any rate, only on the necessarily deterministic terms of id and superego, and consequently that when one died there would be no afterlife experience but simply darkness, as one lost consciousness and slid into nothingness, in the void of death. The natural body was rightly deemed to have perished with death, and the self, or such modified and subordinate self as is compatible with psychic determinism, along with it, so that there would be no ill-consequences for anyone opting for cremation as opposed to burial, for disposal of his corpse on suitably modern, secular terms rather than in relation to a more ecclesiastic tradition owing much more to the teachings of the Christian Church and belief in the immortality of the soul than to CRT-type technologies.
9. How else to explain the audacity with which so many 'modern' people go blindly to the crematorium as though the self didn't exist or didn't continue to exist on a higher, or soulful, level within the corpse and would not suffer adversely in consequence of being subjected to intense heat from the raging furnace whose business it was to incinerate and totally reduce everything to a heap of ashes? Would a truly self-respecting person, with Christian or more than Christian belief in the self and its posthumous immortality, permit of such a terrible fate, a fate that effectively damns the self, the illuminated brain stem and spinal column of the central nervous system, to the most excruciating agony it could ever know? I do not think so!
10. Nor is wisdom after the event of any consolation to the deceased! For what logic is there to scattering the deceased's remains, his ashes, over the ground or whatever in some pseudo-religious ceremony, and ostensibly in certain hope of the resurrection through the Lord Jesus Christ, when the soulful resurrection of the self had already happened and been so brutally 'gate-crashed' and immortally undermined through crematorial incineration? Somehow such people have completely missed the point and duly misunderstood the terms and nature of resurrection - at least as it applies to the self in relation to death and to what has been ordained to psyche from the outset in consequence of the cessation of bodily functions.
11. But, then, the more representatively 'modern' people, with their secular criteria and technological conditioning, can hardly be expected to get it, to understand the immortality of the self in relation to a universal afterlife in which, bereft of functioning organs to manipulate or otherwise address, the central nervous system turns upon itself and comes alive in the most radiant soul of inward self-consuming, before subsiding towards eventual senescence and expiration in the darkness of extensive decomposition.
12. It may even be that such a process does not take place for everybody, and that only metachemical and, especially, metaphysical selves, being noumenal and therefore closer to eternity, achieve anything like a protracted afterlife, albeit from opposite standpoints, while those of lesser mortals, who are properly mortal in their phenomenal temporality, simply expire more quickly, like pop as against classical music, given their chemical or physical dispositions. If so, then there may be a class bias as to whether one opts for cremation or burial, for comparatively swift destruction or gradual decomposition.
13. Whatever the case, the reality of the crematorium is unlikely to go away; for secular modernity has called it into existence in the first place, and the sensual bias of that order of Civilization, no matter how morally false or undesirable from a sensible standpoint, an omega standpoint, is here to stay, in one form or another, until replaced or superseded by a sensible counterpart - in short, by sensible Civilization acting beyond the sensual limitations of the civilized present to a new and altogether superior level of artificiality which, in the synthetic transmutation of afterlife experience on a cyborg-to-post-human basis, will permit of a viable alternative not only to the terrible judgements of crematorial modernity, but to the traditional limitations of both Heathen and Christian burial, the latter of which, though arguably more civilized than natural, indubitably owes more to the relativistic environmental traditions of Christian suburbia than to the supra-Christian environmental absolutism of the urban present.